update - federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi’s ban on DEI in public schools

[mandrill]

A split federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump can move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), concluding that a lower court lacked the jurisdiction to temporarily block the action, according to court records.

However, the panel delayed the ruling from taking immediate effect, giving attorneys for CFPB employees and pro-consumer advocacy groups an opportunity to request a rehearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.




Why It Matters
In February, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought directed the CFPB to stop work on proposed rules, stop investigative work and "cease all supervision and examination activity," according to an email obtained by the Associated Press.

The CFPB was created after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The agency helps ensure that markets for consumer financial products are "transparent, fair, and competitive," according to the agency's website. Since its creation, the CFPB has secured over $21 billion in monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debts and other consumer relief.

The CFPB was created by Congress, which means it would require a separate act of Congress to formally eliminate it.

What To Know
The case was decided by Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao and Cornelia Pillard. Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees, were in the majority. Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.

"We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment," the majority wrote.



In a dissent, Pillard wrote, "It is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all."

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson directed the government to stop firing CPFB employees, except for reasons relating to performance or misconduct. The order also blocked Vought from defunding the agency.

What People Are Saying
Attorney General Pam Bondi, on X: "Another victory for President Trump! In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit sided with my [Justice Department] attorneys in our effort to dismantle the CFPB and rein in crippling Obama-era regulations. We will continue to pursue the President's deregulation efforts."


Trump administration gets major court win

 

[mandrill]

Federal troops are patrolling the National Mall and neighborhoods across Washington while President Donald Trump's administration exerts extraordinary power over law enforcement in the nation's capital.

District of Columbia National Guard soldiers keep watch as travelers arrive at Union Station near the Capitol, Thursday, Aug 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)© The Associated Press
But the administration backed down from an attempt to take over the city's police department by installing its own emergency police commissioner after a federal judge indicated she would rule against it. The partial retreat interrupted one aspect of the most sweeping uses of federal authority over a local government in modern times.




How it will play out and whether the federal government will use this experience as a potential blueprint for dealing with other cities remains up in the air. Here's what to know about the situation and what might come next:

Why is Trump taking over the police in DC?

The Republican president this week announced he’s taking control over Washington’s police department and activating National Guard troops to reduce crime, an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. But District of Columbia officials say the action isn't needed, pointing out that violent crime in the district reached historic 30-year lows last year and is down significantly again this year.

Can he do that?

D.C.'s status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump a window to assert more control over the district than other cities. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser didn't offer much resistance at first, allowing city workers to clear homeless encampments and work closely with federal immigration agents. But on Friday, the heavily Democratic district asked for an emergency court order blocking Trump officials from putting a federal official in charge of D.C. police.

A homeless encampment is seen near the Lincoln Memorial as President Donald Trump uses federal law enforcement and the National Guard eliminate violent crime and unhoused people from the nation's capital, in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)© The Associated Press
So, who is in charge of police in Washington?

The Trump administration on Friday agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department. That came one day after Attorney General Pam Bondi said the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration would take over the police chief’s duties, including authority over orders issued to officers.



The two sides sparred in court for hours before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes after the city sued to stop the order. The judge indicated the law likely doesn’t grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like. She pushed the two sides to compromise, promising to issue a court order temporarily blocking the administration from naming a new chief if they couldn’t agree.

Department of Homeland Security police officers interact with people arriving at Nationals Park during a baseball game between the Washington Nationals and Philadelphia Phillies in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
But while Attorney General Pam Bondi agreed to leave the police chief in charge, she directed the District’s police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.

A man carring his personal belongings as he crosses the street infront of Washington Metropolitan Police officer outside of the Martin Luther King Memorial library in downtown Washington, Thursday, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)© The Associated Press
What's at stake

The showdown in Washington is the latest attempt by Trump to test the boundaries of his legal authority to carry out his tough-on-crime agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally.



What are the federal troops doing in DC?

About 800 National Guard troops are being activated, with Humvees parked along the Washington Monument and near Union Station. Troops have been spotted standing outside baseball's Nationals Park and neighborhood restaurants. The White House says guard members aren’t making arrests but are protecting law enforcement officers who are making arrests and helping deter violent crime. Trump says one of the objectives will be moving homeless people far from the city.



Trump has the authority to do this for 30 days and says he might look into extending it. But that would require congressional approval. Whether Republicans in Congress would go along with that is unclear. Some D.C. residents have protested against the increased police presence. For some, the action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint predominantly Black cities with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify police action.


Will Trump try to take control in other US cities?

Washington is very different from any other American city, and the rules that govern it give the federal government much more control than it would have anywhere else. Whether Trump is using this as a blueprint for how to approach cities — largely Democratic cities — that he wants to exert more control over remains to be seen.

John Seewer, The Associated Press

Trump administration partially retreats from a takeover of Washington's police. Here's what to know

 

[mandrill]

The Trump administration has reduced funding for climate research, dismissed federal scientists who worked on the National Climate Assessment, and removed past editions of the report from government websites. Now, critics say, it is taking the next step: rewriting the science itself, according to a lawsuit filed this week by environmental groups.




As the Environmental Protection Agency moves to revoke the Endangerment Finding, the 2009 scientific determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, the Department of Energy published a new review of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. climate that aims to support the EPA's efforts.

The report was developed this spring by the 2025 Climate Working Group, which is composed of five independent climate scientists selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

But environmental groups and independent scientists have criticized the report and how it was written, claiming it was assembled in secret by the five scientists who are recognized by the larger scientific community as climate skeptics.

"The secret report was produced by a set of known climate contrarians who were commissioned to write this report that's full of inaccuracies," said Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director of climate and energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's clearly geared towards trying to give the EPA a way to evade its legal responsibility to address the health harms of heat trapping emissions and climate change."





A "secret report"
The DOE report, entitled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was commissioned in March when Wright assembled the group to undertake a massive review of scientific findings in a very short period of time, with no public announcement of this effort.

The five authors delivered their final draft by May 28. In the report's preface, the authors wrote, "The short timeline and the technical nature of the material meant that we could not comprehensively review all topics."

Their report argues that carbon-driven warming may be less economically damaging than commonly believed, and that aggressive U.S. climate policies would have little measurable impact on the global climate. It attributes some warming to natural climate cycles or changes in the sun, instead of the burning of fossil fuels, and also claims sea level rise has not been accelerating, contrary to widely accepted scientific evidence. Finally, it highlights the potential benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels for plant growth.





"I would say that it presents an incomplete and misleading picture of how climate change is affecting the United States," said Phil Duffy, chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, who previously worked in the Biden and Obama administrations as a science policy expert.

Duffy and other scientists say the DOE report cherry-picks evidence, misrepresents peer-reviewed research, and ignores the overwhelming consensus that human activity is driving dangerous warming. Numerous climate-based groups and researchers have published their own fact-checks on the report, with one listing more than 100 false or misleading claims made by the authors.

CBS News reached out to the Department of Energy about the criticisms of the report. They responded by referring to Wright's statement in the preface, where he wrote that he chose the panel "for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate."

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, center, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, right, outside the White House on March 19, 2025. / Credit: Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
"This DOE report is in service of a political goal, it's not credible science," said Ben Santer, a climate researcher and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Santer says his own published work was misrepresented in the DOE report and said the authors "fundamentally twist" the work of many researchers to reach conclusions that "will be used for a political purpose."


Critics in the scientific community have pointed out that the panel's five authors are known for their contrarian views on climate science, which are often at odds with the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

"The people that were handpicked by the Trump administration's energy secretary are this very small group of people who are known to disagree with that mountain of [scientific] evidence," said Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund. "Some of them have connections to the fossil fuel industry."

Accusations of rewriting science
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas executive, has been vocal about his views on climate change, which align with the report's findings. In an op-ed earlier this year, he called climate change "a by-product of progress," and wrote, "I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement." He argues that while climate change is real, it is not the greatest threat, and that expanding access to affordable, reliable energy should remain the priority.


Wright has been transparent about how he views U.S. climate research, telling CNN's Kaitlan Collins that the administration is reviewing past federal climate reports, including the National Climate Assessment, and may provide "updates" later this year, leading many in the scientific community to fear the administration is aiming to edit or censor critical research.

"It's important that science be allowed to speak for itself and I do have concerns that that's not happening," Duffy told CBS News.

National Climate Assessments typically take years to write and are authored by hundreds of scientists.

Duffy says that Wright didn't oversee the previous reports and therefore has no authority to review or revise them. "He can't rewrite the National Climate Assessment any more than I can rewrite 'The Great Gatsby,'" Duffy says.

The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court against the EPA and the Department of Energy, arguing that their actions violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency and balanced membership for government advisory panels. The suit alleges that the Climate Working Group was created in secret, its work withheld from the public, and then its report was used extensively by the EPA, cited 22 times, to justify repealing the Endangerment Finding. The organizations are asking a judge to block the government's use of the report to comply with transparency laws.


When asked about the lawsuit, the EPA responded in an email saying, "As a matter of longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation," and referred CBS News to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy did not respond to any of our requests for comment.

Trump administration faces lawsuit over "secret report" on climate change

 

[mandrill]

The ability of former Donald Trump lawyer Alina Habba to remain in her job as acting New Jersey U.S. attorney will face another hurdle next week when a federal judge will rule on arguments for and against the controversial appointee.

According to a report from Politico’s Matt Friedman, a skeptical Judge Matthew Brann, who sits on the bench in Pennsylvania’s Middle District, had Habba’s case drop in his lap and has announced he hopes to rule on Habba’s eligibility on Wednesday while admitting at the same time he expects whatever decision he makes will be appealed by the losing party.





As Friedman notes, “Two criminal defendants in New Jersey — Julien Giraud Jr., who’s facing gun and drug charges, and Cesar Pina, a house-flipping influencer who’s charged with running a Ponzi-like real estate scheme — are challenging Habba’s authority and seeking dismissal of their indictments. Giraud was charged before Habba took office, and Pina after.”

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

Politico is reporting Brann has already questioned the appointment of the controversial Habba by Attorney General Pam Bondi as a “special attorney,” which would permit her to oversee the office for years without the U.S. attorney title.

In July, New Jersey’s district court judges appointed then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace to replace Habba who had yet to be approved by the Senate, only for Bondi to step in and fire Grace and re-hire Habba.




According to Politico, “Brann suggested that maneuver to keep Habba in charge of the office as special attorney would render the law on appointing U.S. attorneys ‘pointless’ since a person could do the job indefinitely without Senate confirmation.”

As the judge explained, “Even if you believe [the law] is ambiguous — and I don’t think it is — going to the legislative history is a death knell.”

You can read more here.

Alina Habba's future as a US attorney facing new hurdle next week: report

 

[mandrill]

Just three months after the first group of White South Africans arrived in the United States under a special refugee program, the Trump administration is now preparing to cap total refugee admissions at around 40,000 for 2026, according to Reuters.

Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said approximately 30,000 of those spots would be allocated to Afrikaners, a Dutch-descended minority in South Africa that President Trump has publicly prioritized for resettlement.

The proposed limit would mark a major shift in U.S. refugee policy. It is a significant drop from the 100,000 refugees admitted during President Joe Biden’s final year in office, although higher than the 15,000-person ceiling Trump set in 2021 before leaving office.

Trump administration reportedly plans refugee cap, prioritizing White South Africans
After returning to the White House in January, Trump temporarily froze refugee admissions. Weeks later, he launched a program specifically for Afrikaners, claiming the group faces racial discrimination and even the threat of genocide in majority-Black South Africa.

The South African government has strongly rejected those claims. Officials there have accused Trump of politicizing immigration policy and spreading misinformation.

If enacted, the cap would significantly reshape the U.S. refugee program and likely spark new debate over immigration priorities and racial bias.

U.S. to prioritize White South Africans in refugee admissions

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has agreed to provide to Congress documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation, a key House lawmaker said Monday in announcing a move that appears to avert, at least temporarily, a potential separation of powers clash.





The records are to be turned over starting Friday to the House Oversight Committee, which earlier this month issued a broad subpoena to the Justice Department about a criminal case that has long captivated public attention, recently roiled the top rungs of President Donald Trump's administration and been a consistent magnet for conspiracy theories.

“There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,” Kentucky Rep. James Comer, the Republican committee chair, said in a statement. "I appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.

A wealthy and well-connected financier, Epstein was found dead in his New York jail cell weeks after his 2019 arrest in what investigators ruled a suicide. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of helping lure teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.




The committee's subpoena sought all documents and communications from the case files of Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. It also demanded records about communications between Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration and the Justice Department regarding Epstein, as well as documents related to an earlier federal investigation into Epstein in Florida that resulted in a non-prosecution agreement in 2007.

It was not clear exactly which or how many documents might be produced or whether the cooperation with Congress reflected a broader change in posture since last month, when the FBI and Justice Department abruptly announced that they would not be releasing any additional records from the Epstein investigation after determining that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."

That announcement put the Trump administration on the defensive, with officials since then scrambling both to tamp down angry questions from the president's base and also laboring to appear transparent.




Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell at a Florida courthouse over two days last month — though no records from those conversations have been made public — and the Justice Department has also sought to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases, though so far those requests have been denied.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Monday.

The panel separately issued subpoenas to eight former law enforcement leaders as well as former Democratic President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton was among a number of luminaries acquainted with Epstein, a wealthy financier, before the criminal investigation against him in Florida became public two decades ago. Clinton has never been accused of wrongdoing by any of the women who say Epstein abused them.

Justice Department to begin giving Congress files from Jeffrey Epstein investigation, lawmaker says

 

[mandrill]

Since Medicaid was expanded by the North Carolina State Legislature in early 2024, around 650,000 residents of the swing state signed up for it. But now, according to Washington Post reporter Paige Winfield Cunningham, they are in danger of losing that coverage thanks to draconian Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" — which he signed into law over the 4th of July Weekend after it was passed by GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.


In an article published on August 18, Cunningham explains, "In signing that law, Trump approved more than $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. Those cuts are colliding with state budget challenges, imperiling the future of Medicaid in states such as North Carolina.

In a letter sent on August 11, Devdutta Sangvai — secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) — told members of the state legislature that the department will begin slashing Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals on October 1.

READ MORE: 'Don’t be surprised': George Conway says Trump might pull out of NATO 'tonight'

Sangvai wrote, "To meet an effective date of October 1, we must begin several administrative steps now, including notifying providers and beneficiaries, updating contracts and systems, and informing our federal partners at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We have attempted to make these cuts reversible in the event that additional funding is approved. Absent additional appropriations by the General Assembly, however, NCDHHS will proceed with the reductions described herein."




Cunningham notes that "cuts to Medicaid affect more North Carolinians than ever before."

"The state's Medicaid rolls swelled nearly 30 percent, to 3 million people, after state Republicans dropped their decade-long opposition to expanding the program under the increasingly popular Affordable Care Act and worked with Democrats to broaden eligibility," the Washington Post journalist reports. "Before that expansion, Medicaid mainly covered people with low incomes who were disabled, had dependent children or were pregnant. But now, in most states, just about anyone earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold — $22,000 for a single person and $44,000 for a family of four — is eligible."

Cunningham adds, "Previously, these low-income earners had fallen through the cracks of a patchwork insurance system. Many had no employer-sponsored coverage and didn't earn enough to qualify for subsidized plans sold on Affordable Care Act marketplaces. But under Trump's new law, millions of Americans are projected to drop out of Medicaid under stricter rules to qualify for the insurance and stay enrolled. That in turn will result in states receiving fewer Medicaid dollars from the federal government, which covers about two-thirds of the costs."


Cunningham points to North Carolina resident Sonya Poole, a 64-year-old cancer survivor, as an example of someone who signed up for Medicaid but is in danger of losing her access to health care.

"Poole will become eligible for Medicare next year before the new Medicaid changes kick in," Cunningham notes. "But she's the kind of patient experts worry could lose Medicaid coverage if they fail to turn in the extra paperwork that might be required for them to stay on the program."

Trump’s Medicaid cuts threaten access for thousands in key swing state

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission from investigating Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog group that had alleged the spread of hate speech on X since Elon Musk acquired the social media platform.




U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled Friday that the FTC's probe of Media Matters, “purportedly to investigate an advertiser boycott concerning social media platforms,” represents a clear violation of the group's freedom of speech.

“It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Sooknanan wrote.

Even before the FTC got involved, Media Matters has been defending itself against a lawsuit by Musk following the organization's November 2023 story that, following Musk's purchase of the social media site once known as Twitter, antisemitic posts and other offensive content were appearing next to advertisements there.

Sooknanan said the injunction halting any FTC probe was merited because Media Matters is likely to succeed on its claim that the FTC is being used to retaliate against it for a critical article on a Trump supporter.



“The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,” said Angelo Carusone, chairman and president of Media Matters.

There was no immediate comment from an FTC spokesman.

The Associated Press

Judge issues injunction preventing Trump's FTC from investigating watchdog Media Matters

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Noem faces scrutiny over rent-free military home
A top member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet has quietly been living — for free — in a spacious waterfront residence on a military base, sparking controversy over the unprecedented housing arrangement, Knewz.com can report. An investigation has confirmed that in recent months, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem moved into a property known as Quarters 1 — which is traditionally the home of the Coast Guard’s top admiral — at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington.

Unorthodox living arrangement

President Trump fired Linda Fagan, the first female Coast Guard commandant, on his second day in office. By: Bonnie Cash – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
An official familiar with the situation confirmed to The Washington Post that Noem — who makes more than $200,000 a year as Department of Homeland Security secretary and has an estimated net worth of $5 million — is not paying rent to reside in the Coast Guard commandant’s house. The Post described the arrangement as “highly unusual” and “unorthodox.” Quarters 1 was vacant — until Noem moved in — following the Trump administration’s decision to fire four-star Admiral Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard, in January. Fagan was evicted from her home with three hours’ notice, NBC News reported.

The controversy

Unnamed Coast Guard officials are questioning DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s military housing arrangement. By: The Marksman on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Critics — including unnamed current and retired Coast Guard officials and some Democrats — have expressed concern that Noem, who supervises the Coast Guard in her role as DHS secretary and has also faced scrutiny in recent months for her work overseeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation raids, could be seen as exploiting her position. Limited housing on the base means Noem’s arrangement could impact senior military officials. A source familiar with Coast Guard housing policy told The Post that previous commandants paid to lease their quarters.

Unprecedented situation

Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson described the commandant’s residence as “a very nice, waterfront house.” By: Alex Edelman – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, who served under President Barack Obama, shared concerns about “the message” Noem’s rent-free arrangement “sends down the line in the career military community.” According to Johnson, no DHS secretary has previously resided in government housing until now. “Most likely, if a Cabinet secretary takes a government house, there’s a chain reaction and people very senior are getting displaced,” he told The Post. While some defense secretaries have resided in military housing, including current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, there is a federal law that allows them the perk, though they must pay for it. There is no law addressing the issue for other Cabinet secretaries, according to The Post.

Noem’s explanation

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s new living arrangement is temporary. By: Al Drago – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told The Post that Noem moved into the commandant’s residence, which she said was temporary, due to safety concerns following an April report in Britain’s Daily Mail that included photos of the area near the former South Dakota governor’s rented apartment in Washington’s Navy Yard neighborhood. “[The] need for heightened security for Secretary Noem should make sense, even to a reporter, given she has DHS going after the worst of the worst. That includes hundreds if not thousands of members of international cartels and terrorist organizations,” McLaughlin said in a statement. McLaughlin further told The Post that Noem was “so horribly doxxed and targeted that she is no longer able to safely live in her own apartment” and that it was “sad” for a Post reporter to “suggest a rancher should have to pay a second rent because of a reporter’s irresponsible decisions to dox where she lives.” She added, “If you cannot find humanity in another human’s safety and security, I invite you to find it here,” and offered a link to Washington National Cathedral.

Criticism from a top Democrat

Senator Chris Murphy has shared his concerns about the DHS secretary’s rent-free living arrangements. By: Rod Lamkey – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The commandant’s house is “not a vanity residence” and Noem is “essentially taking that property from the military,” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, told The Post. “It’s a real insult to the brave men and women who are protecting our shores that she thinks that house belongs to her instead of to the Coast Guard,” the senator said.

 

[mandrill]

MIAMI (AP) — A federal judge in Miami has dismissed part of a lawsuit over the legal rights of detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz" and transferred the remaining case to a different jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz issued the decision late Monday, writing in a 47-page ruling that Fifth Amendment claims the detainees at the facility don’t have confidential access to hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard.





The judge granted the state defendants a change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of First Amendment violations will be addressed. Those include allegations of delays in scheduling meetings between detainees and their attorneys and a lack of confidentiality when detainees are talking to their attorneys by phone or videoconference at the facility whose official name is the South Detention Facility.



ACLU attorney Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said the federal government only reversed course last weekend and allowed the detainees to petition an immigration court because of the lawsuit.

“It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution,” Cho said. “We look forward to continuing the fight.”


The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility have access to their lawyers and can get a hearing.

The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s southern district was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s middle district.

Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate.

“Much has changed since the complaint’s filing,” Ruiz wrote.

Six of the plaintiffs have met with lawyers through videoconference, though they claimed the conferences are not confidential since they are not in an enclosed room and staff is close by and in listening proximity to the detainees.




A subset of detainees alleged they are eligible for bond hearings and their lawyers have been “unable to access — yet alone identify — the proper court for those hearings."

But Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday, when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center.

Ruiz wrote that the case has “a tortured procedural history” since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.

“Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs’ civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,” the judge wrote.

The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it’s in compliance with federal environmental laws.


U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question.

Judge dismisses part of lawsuit over ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ immigration detention center

 

[mandrill]

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway.

The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse “divisive concepts,” and ban diversity training requirements.

The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts.

The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from “engaging in discriminatory practices” by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding.

A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state.

“It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom,” he wrote.

Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff’s lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions.

Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance.

“The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement.

Wingate’s ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July.

At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech.


Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered “divisive topics.”

Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I think I’m in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that’s very important to me,” Johnson testified. “I feel a bit paralyzed.”

The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights.


“They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,” said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office.

She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say.

Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' “argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.”

Sophie Bates, The Associated Press

Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools

 

[mandrill]

A former Justice Department official — and longtime ally of President Donald Trump — should lose his license to practice law after he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, a Washington-based disciplinary panel decided. Jeffrey Clark, who was a senior DOJ attorney during the president’s first term, has vowed to fight the ruling that determined his conduct violated professional ethics.

The board’s conclusions

Jeffrey Clark was a senior U.S. Department of Justice official during President Donald Trump’s first term. By: Ron Sachs – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Clark was “prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation” into the 2020 presidential election — which was won by Democrat Joe Biden — the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility said in its report. “Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,” the board explained. But former DOJ official Clark — who now, in Trump’s second term, leads the White House Office of Management and Budget division that vets proposed executive branch rules — “persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue,” the report stated. “He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”

Defending his actions


Jeffrey Clark wrote that he is drafting “the next round of legal papers” as he fights to retain his law license. By: Dalton Caraway on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Clark took to social media to brand the ruling “disappointing news from a 100% politicized D.C. Bar process.” He insisted he knows he “did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did.” Clark also shared a Bible verse as he asked supporters for prayers for his “vindication” and vowed to “challenge the nonsense lawfare the progressive movement has cooked up to bedevil lawyers with conservative backbones.”

What got him here


Jeffrey Clark has denied any wrongdoing. By: Nils Huenerfuerst on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The disciplinary panel’s ruling is based on Clark’s attempt to pressure Department of Justice officials into issuing a false statement claiming there was substantial evidence of election fraud. A Senate Judiciary report detailed his alleged actions, claiming Clark in December 2020 tried to get his superiors to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers saying they’d “identified significant concerns” about the election in the state. When officials refused, Clark met with Trump himself and discussed the possibility of replacing then-Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. That led to a White House meeting in early January 2021 that left multiple senior Justice Department and White House officials threatening to resign if Trump made good on a plan to make Clark the acting AG.

Clark’s defenders speak out


The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that Jeffrey Clark have his law license taken away. By: Ron Sachs – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Clark’s attorney in the disciplinary case, Harry MacDougald, has defended his client, insisting, “They want to disbar Jeff Clark for the heresy of privately recommending further investigations of the 2020 election.” MacDougald believes Clark was unfairly targeted for giving legal advice, calling the situation “a pure thought crime and a travesty of justice.” Rachel Cauley, the White House OMB communications director, also backed Clark, branding the board’s ruling “another chapter in the Deep State’s ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth.” According to Cauley, “Jeff Clark has been harassed, raided, doxed and blacklisted simply for questioning a rigged election and serving President Trump.” The disciplinary board’s disbarment recommendation next heads to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will make the final decision.

Trump ally faces disbarment over 2020 election lies

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration moved Tuesday to revoke the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials in the latest act of retribution targeting public servants in the federal government's intelligence community.

A memo posted online by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, accuses the targeted officials of having engaged in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance partisan goals, as well as failure to safeguard classified information and “failure to adhere to professional analytic tradecraft standards.”




Many of the officials who were singled out left the government years ago and served in a broad range of roles, including in senior positions and lower-profile roles far from the public eye. Some have been openly critical of Trump and some worked on matters that have long provoked his ire, including the intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf, or have openly criticized him.

The action is part of a broader Trump administration campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries. It reflects his continued distrust of intelligence officials from prior Democratic administrations and risks chilling dissenting voices from within the national security community.

The revocation of clearances, a vital tool for intelligence professionals needing to preserve access to sensitive information, has been a go-to tactic for Trump, used to target law firms that have fallen out of favor as well as dozens of former officials who signed onto a letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.




“These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,” Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was revoked by the Trump administration, said in a statement.

Gabbard defended Tuesday's move on social media by saying, “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right.”

In the last month Gabbard has declassified a series of years-old documents meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the assessment on Russian election interference.

Many of those whose clearances were revoked only learned of the Gabbard action from news reports published Tuesday, according to two former government officials who were on the list. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity as they ponder whether to take legal action.

Eric Tucker, Aamer Madhani And Matthew Lee, The Associated Press

Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials

 

[mandrill]